9 ms·

> For example, I think free college for everyone is a terrible idea. Most people consider that heresy. A terrible idea from what perspective? I'd love to hear

> For example, I think free college for everyone is a terrible idea. Most people consider that heresy. A terrible idea from what perspective? I'd love to hear more! (I'm on the other side of the spectrum)

onlyrealcuzzo 7y ago
I'm not opposed to free college if 1) you're studying something with a proven ROI, and/or 2) you have a good academic history, and/or 3) you can't otherwise afford it. I think the idea that someone can get straight C's in highschool and get $50k a year to study art in college is not a good use of my tax dollars. I also don't think it's a good idea to give someone like me a free college education. I make $400k a year. I can pay for it my fucking self if I want to. The idea someone else should pay for it seems absurd. Further, some of the most expensive schools are some of the worst schools. I don't think we should be paying an unlimited amount of money for the same education. If the University of Pittsburgh can deliver results much better than USC (I'm not saying it can, this is a hypothetical) -- I don't think you should be able to get $70k a year to go to USC when you can study the same thing with better results at Pittsburgh for $20k. All that being said, I think it's a phenomenal use of my tax dollars to train someone to be a doctor or an engineer or a lawyer (etc), who's demonstrated an interest in medicine (or something relevant) and has done well in high school -- especially if that person wouldn't otherwise be able to afford going to medical school (or law school or whatever). Especially if the tuition at that school isn't excessive, and people who graduate from it actually go on to get jobs as doctors and not baristas at Starbucks. There's a lot of other things to consider as well -- is it just tuition we're covering? In Europe, most of the universities dorms and cafeterias aren't exactly 5-star hotels. Stanford's dorms can cost $2.5k per month for a swanky broom closet. I'm not sure it makes sense to pay for that. But I also think it's important to pay for room & board, because some people might really not be able to afford it, or will probably do worse in school if they have to work a full-time job to pay for room & board. I don't think it's a good investment to pay to put people in school and then set them up for failure. Additionally, I think students should have SOME Skin in the Game. If college is 100% free, I'm not sure that creates the best incentives for the students. Maybe the government should pay for 80% and give you a low-interest loan for the other 20%. And maybe the max you can get is the minimum tuition of schools in the top 5% in your field of study. And maybe you get a stipend for room & board that is reasonable. That, I think would prevent a lot of potential abuses.
- thatfrenchguy 7y ago
  > I think the idea that someone can get straight C's in highschool and get $50k a year to study art in college is not a good use of my tax dollars. What if that person ends up being successful in that field ? Should we only have the kids of the rich do arts ? That seems to be what's going on in the US and you see the devastating cultural result. > Additionally, I think students should have SOME Skin in the Game You have skin in the game, because you need to feed yourself. The government paid for my studies, that doesn't mean I wasn't thinking "how will I have a roof over my head" afterwards. > Stanford's dorms can cost $2.5k per month for a swanky broom closet. I'm not sure it makes sense to pay for that Trust me, if they're focused on reducing costs, they won't cost 2.5k a month. French public (individual) dorms cost like 120e a month.
  - oefrha 7y ago
    > Trust me, if they're focused on reducing costs, they won't cost 2.5k a month. They don't cost 2.5k a month, and they aren't swanky broom closets. The average is ~1k, cheaper if you live with more people; this is below Palo Alto rent, mind you. I believe the Stanford dorm experience is way better than that of most American institutions. For starters, every undergrad is basically guaranteed housing for the entirety of their college education, so no one is unwillingly ejected from university housing and forced to rent elsewhere (which is more expensive, as I already pointed out). Not sure why gp decided to throw some random defamation at Stanford (might have been exaggerating to make a point, but it's not at all clear from the writing). Disclosure: Stanford alum.
    - goerz 7y ago
      I’ve stayed in Stanford dorms, and they were pretty swanky (but then, so was pretty much every other dorm in the US I’ve seen)
      - oefrha 7y ago
        The variance is huge among all the different dorms so there are relatively swanky ones and ones that are not so (most are in the latter category, depending what you perceive as swanky of course). But my rebuttal was more on the "broom closet" part.

onlyrealcuzzo 7y ago

I'm not opposed to free college if 1) you're studying something with a proven ROI, and/or 2) you have a good academic history, and/or 3) you can't otherwise afford it. I think the idea that someone can get straight C's in highschool and get $50k a year to study art in college is not a good use of my tax dollars. I also don't think it's a good idea to give someone like me a free college education. I make $400k a year. I can pay for it my fucking self if I want to. The idea someone else should pay for it seems absurd. Further, some of the most expensive schools are some of the worst schools. I don't think we should be paying an unlimited amount of money for the same education. If the University of Pittsburgh can deliver results much better than USC (I'm not saying it can, this is a hypothetical) -- I don't think you should be able to get $70k a year to go to USC when you can study the same thing with better results at Pittsburgh for $20k. All that being said, I think it's a phenomenal use of my tax dollars to train someone to be a doctor or an engineer or a lawyer (etc), who's demonstrated an interest in medicine (or something relevant) and has done well in high school -- especially if that person wouldn't otherwise be able to afford going to medical school (or law school or whatever). Especially if the tuition at that school isn't excessive, and people who graduate from it actually go on to get jobs as doctors and not baristas at Starbucks. There's a lot of other things to consider as well -- is it just tuition we're covering? In Europe, most of the universities dorms and cafeterias aren't exactly 5-star hotels. Stanford's dorms can cost $2.5k per month for a swanky broom closet. I'm not sure it makes sense to pay for that. But I also think it's important to pay for room & board, because some people might really not be able to afford it, or will probably do worse in school if they have to work a full-time job to pay for room & board. I don't think it's a good investment to pay to put people in school and then set them up for failure. Additionally, I think students should have SOME Skin in the Game. If college is 100% free, I'm not sure that creates the best incentives for the students. Maybe the government should pay for 80% and give you a low-interest loan for the other 20%. And maybe the max you can get is the minimum tuition of schools in the top 5% in your field of study. And maybe you get a stipend for room & board that is reasonable. That, I think would prevent a lot of potential abuses.

thatfrenchguy 7y ago
> I think the idea that someone can get straight C's in highschool and get $50k a year to study art in college is not a good use of my tax dollars. What if that person ends up being successful in that field ? Should we only have the kids of the rich do arts ? That seems to be what's going on in the US and you see the devastating cultural result. > Additionally, I think students should have SOME Skin in the Game You have skin in the game, because you need to feed yourself. The government paid for my studies, that doesn't mean I wasn't thinking "how will I have a roof over my head" afterwards. > Stanford's dorms can cost $2.5k per month for a swanky broom closet. I'm not sure it makes sense to pay for that Trust me, if they're focused on reducing costs, they won't cost 2.5k a month. French public (individual) dorms cost like 120e a month.
- oefrha 7y ago
  > Trust me, if they're focused on reducing costs, they won't cost 2.5k a month. They don't cost 2.5k a month, and they aren't swanky broom closets. The average is ~1k, cheaper if you live with more people; this is below Palo Alto rent, mind you. I believe the Stanford dorm experience is way better than that of most American institutions. For starters, every undergrad is basically guaranteed housing for the entirety of their college education, so no one is unwillingly ejected from university housing and forced to rent elsewhere (which is more expensive, as I already pointed out). Not sure why gp decided to throw some random defamation at Stanford (might have been exaggerating to make a point, but it's not at all clear from the writing). Disclosure: Stanford alum.
  - goerz 7y ago
    I’ve stayed in Stanford dorms, and they were pretty swanky (but then, so was pretty much every other dorm in the US I’ve seen)
    - oefrha 7y ago
      The variance is huge among all the different dorms so there are relatively swanky ones and ones that are not so (most are in the latter category, depending what you perceive as swanky of course). But my rebuttal was more on the "broom closet" part.